What you're saying is analogous to saying our govt't taxing of telephone calls will lead to us reverting back sending smoke signals from Manhattan to DC, or using carrier pigeons.
IMHO France is putting up the digital piracy bogey man to satiate the content industry while also allowing it to pass a tax onto it's populace. Once people become used to the tax they will increase it and divert the profits elsewhere. Of course I can't prove because it involves future actions that may or may not take place and the intent may not currently be there.
The irony of it all is that the telephone example is an example of my point that gov'ts keep taxes around long after their initial reasons for existence have passed. Income tax being another great example. I think the debts of WW1 have long since been paid.
Google Ads are different from regular advertising since the revenue accrues at the time the user clicks and located where that transaction occurs, which is on the user's desktop (i.e. place of delivery).
From the article: "This may explain why the French first lady's producer, Patrick Zelnik, was tasked with leading the commission, which came up with the proposals. One of these suggests taxing internet service providers to raise tens of millions of pounds for developing the online music business and other creative sectors. The funds would go towards financing schemes such as a government-subsidised digital subscription for 15 to 24-year-olds to download music cheaply to wean them off illegal piracy."
Isn't the idea behind capitalism that good businesses succeed, while bad businesses fail? What happens when all of the bad businesses are propped up by government subsidies?
^sigh^ whatever happened to letting the market decide...
It was realised that it was not the most effective method to maintain profits for those established individuals and organisations that have the clout to influence government policy. Let's hope that one day this changes, but I'm not holding my breath.
I'm not even sure we're in a period where this is more pervasive than usual. That said, I agree that in 99% of cases corporate welfare is a terrible idea.
The companies that own the search engines are already paying tax on their advertising revenue. See other person's comment above.
Why should this case be any different.
The origination of revenue concept, residency, etc. in tax law is continuously being tested, both by governments and by companies, in a tug of war.
Consider this case of affiliate advertising (which, although different in specifics from the French case, has the same tone and a similar legal path):
http://venturebeat.com/2009/04/24/california’s-proposed-“ama...
In particular, this bit: "Here’s how it would work: If you have a web-based business in California and collect revenue by showing out-of-state companies’ ads on your site, Bill AB178 will claim that both you and the businesses you advertise on your site have residence in California, and are therefore required to pay California sales tax. For example, say your Santa Monica-based web site shows banner ads for Amazon.com. With Bill AB178 in place, Amazon.com would be classified as a California-based business based on the fact that your business draws affiliate advertising sales revenue. Amazon would then be required to collect sales tax on all sales into California. The idea behind the bill is that California could force out-of-state retailers to collect and pay California sales taxes."
You can also read more about it here: http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=4...